Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Process Knowledge Summary Report”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

60 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

AGGREGATE: dAta-driven modelinG preservinG contRollable dEr for outaGe mAnagemenT and rEsiliency (Final Report)

The AGGREGATE project team successfully developed and validated various modules for outage management. Brief summaries of each module are provided to showcase their strength for outage management and restoration for a distribution system with a high penetration of connected distribution energy resources (DERs). In recent years, inverter-based DERs have been widely deployed in distribution system. A most of behind-the-meter (BTM) solar power generation is not visible to the utility. The data-driven DER and load estimation modules are using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to manage this issue, which provides an opportunity for distribution system operators (DSOs) to operate systems and make decisions in real-time for a distribution system with a high penetration of DERs deployed. Also, the estimated DER and true load can be further leveraged in network aggregation and cold-load pick up estimation for reducing the computing complexity and providing for fast restoration. After load demand and DER power generations have been estimated, the information will support topology and state estimation (SE). The topology estimation module demonstrated the viability of mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulation to estimate the most likely operational radial topology and outage sections using power flow measurements, historical/estimated load and DERs data and smart meter ping measurements. Formulation includes continuous (power flow, load and DERs data) and binary measurements (smart meter ping measurements) in a single formulation. Errors in continuous data and binary data are modeled as normal distribution and Bernoulli distribution, respectively. In the future distribution grid, the power injection from controllable DERs will be essential for efficient and resilient grid operation. However, determining the optimal DER injections and restoration actions is dependent on knowledge of the system states. State estimation (SE), already the cornerstone of transmission energy management systems, will become commonplace in distribution management systems as more measurements become available from deployment of automated metering infrastructure (AMI). Observability analysis is the first step in SE, as it determines the sufficiency of the available measurements for accurately estimating the current system states. A new type of pseudo-measurement called a Correlational Measurement (CM) is introduced in this module, to enhance the observability of the system to enable more accurate SE. CMs encapsulate knowledge of correlation between demand patterns for similar classes of loads as well as injection patterns for same-technology renewable DERs. During grid contingency scenarios, DERs have been traditionally disconnected, without any fault ride-through capabilities. However, with new regulations and better technology, it is feasible for these resources to contribute to the grid’s restoration after an adverse event and hence enhance resilience. The controllability module proposes a two-step restoration scheme for the power system restoration process by leveraging additional degrees of freedom in power electronics interfaced DERs for mitigating voltage problems. In a resilience mode without the utility system, the distribution grid relies on DERs to serve critical load. In such a severe event with multiple faults on the distribution feeders, actuation of various protective devices (PDs) divides the distribution system into electrical islands. The undetected actuated PDs due to fault current contributions from DERs can delay the restoration process, thereby reducing the system resilience. The Advanced Outage Management (AOM) and the Advanced Feeder Restoration (AFR) modules developed in this project provide improved system resilience with multiple DERs. AOM identifies the faulted sections and actuated PDs in a distribution system with DERs by incorporating smart meter data. The most credible outage scenario including fault locations, PD actuations, and fault indicator (FI) failures is identified by a set of binary integer linear programming incorporating hypotheses. The AFR module serves to restore a distribution system with available energy resources taking into consideration the availability of utility sources and DERs. By partitioning the system into islands, critical load will be served with the available generation resources within islands based on the solution of a MILP. When the utility systems become available, the optimal path will be determined by a spanning tree search algorithm that reconnects these islands back to substations and restores the remaining load. The transmission and distribution (T&D) co-simulation module was used to validate the effect of a control action performed on the distribution side assets as it propagates to the transmission side. This ensures that the control action performed results in a feasible operating point on both the transmission and the distribution system. In addition to validation, the team used the T&D co-simulation module to demonstrate how distribution system assets can be used to mitigate issues on the transmission system. Specifically, the team demonstrated that appropriate switching operations on the distribution side can alleviate the line overload condition on the transmission side without causing new operational constraint violations.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pilot Testing of a Highly Efficient Pre-combustion Sorbent-based Carbon Capture System

TDA developed and demonstrated a highly efficient pre-combustion carbon capture system. The overall objective of this work was to develop a new sorbent-based pre-combustion carbon capture technology for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants. In this project our goal was to demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the new technology by 1) demonstrating it in large-scale slipstream tests, and 2) carrying out a high fidelity engineering and cost analysis. TDA’s process used an advanced physical adsorbent that selectively removes CO 2 from coal-derived synthesis gas above the dew point of the gas at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent consists of a mesoporous carbon whose surface was grafted with functional groups that remove CO 2 via a well-known acid-base interaction. As documented in bench-scale experiments and field tests with actual coal gas, the sorbent achieved a very high capacity for CO 2 at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent bound CO 2 more strongly than common physical adsorbents, providing the chemical potential needed for the high temperature operation. However, because CO 2 does not form a true covalent bond with the surface sites (as is the case with chemical absorbents), the sorbent regeneration could be carried out with only a very small energy input. The heat input to regenerate our sorbent was only 4.9 kcal per mol of CO 2 , which is much lower than that for chemical absorbents (e.g., 29.9 kcal/mol CO 2 for sodium carbonate) and was similar to the requirements of physical solvents (e.g., 4 kcal/mol CO 2 for Selexol TM ). Because the sorbent operates above the dew point of the synthesis gas (unlike the Selexol TM process), a higher power cycle efficiency can be achieved. With previous DOE/NETL funding (Contract No. DE-FE-0000469), we demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the technology in bench-scale tests and slipstream demonstrations at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, Alabama and Wabash River IGCC plant in Terra Haute, Indiana. We demonstrated a stable working CO 2 capacity for over 11,650 cycles with simulated synthesis gas. We also evaluated its performance with actual synthesis gas in two test campaigns at the Wabash River IGCC Plant, Terre Haute, IN and the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL. The slipstream tests clearly showed that the actual coal gas constituents and potential contaminants (e.g. trace metals, halides, tars) had no effect on the sorbent’s ability to remove CO 2 (the same sorbent beds were used in both field tests with no sign of deactivation for 2,000 cycles with over 26,750 SCF of gas treated). As expected, due to the high temperature CO 2 removal capability and low energy needed to regenerate the sorbent, the power cycle efficiency with our process was greater than 34% on a higher heating value (HHV) basis; in comparison, the same IGCC plant equipped with the Selexol TM solvent for carbon capture can only achieve 31.4% HHV efficiency. The capital cost for an IGCC system with TDA’s process is estimated as $2,417/kW e , which is 12% lower than that of the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. The levelized cost for electricity including the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) cost for CO 2 was calculated as $\$ $92.9/MWh (lowest reported to our knowledge), which is much better than the $105.2/MWh estimated for the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. In this project (DE-FE0013105), TDA Research, in collaboration with our partners Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI), University of California, Irvine (UCI), University of Alberta (UOA), Siemens, NCCC and Sinopec advanced the technical maturity of the technology; scaling it up by a factor of 100. We optimized the reactor design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD); using adsorption modeling we improved the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) cycle sequence. We carried out two field test campaigns with a fully-equipped 0.1 MW e prototype unit (for a total of 844 hours) using actual synthesis gas to prove the viability of the new technology. A successful 30 day (707 hrs) evaluation was completed at NCCC under air blown gasification conditions. We demonstrated 97.3% carbon capture at 1,500 SLPM, 93% carbon capture at 1,800 SLPM, and 90% carbon capture at 2,100 SLPM in the NCCC tests. We also demonstrated the system for 137 hours at a Sinopec petrochemical plant under oxygen blown gasification, demonstrating 86% carbon capture at 2,660 SLPM. In collaboration with University of California, Irvine (UCI), we completed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for TDA’s warm gas cleanup technology integrated to IGCC power plant. The net plant efficiencies (on a coal HHV basis) for the warm gas cleanup cases were estimated to be 34.0% for E-GasTM gasifier, 34.4% for GE gasifier, 33.4 for the Shell gasifier and 34.2 for the TRIG TM gasifier (Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this study) with a catalytic combustor for CO 2 purification, which are significantly higher than those for the Cold Gas Case, or an increase of as much as 12% in the heat rate for Case 2, 6% for Case 4, 9% for Case 6, and 9% for Case 8. The 1st year cost of electricity with the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs for the CO 2 included was $\$ $129.2/MWh for the E-GasTM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $131.9/MWh for the GE gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $146.8/MWh for the Shell Gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, and $\$ $129.9/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case. For comparison, the costs for the baseline Cold Gas CO 2 removal with Selexol for the different gasifiers were: $\$ $146.6/MWh for the E-Gas TM gasifier, $\$ $142.2/MWh for the GE gasifier, $\$ $159.0/MWh for the Shell gasifier and $\$ $144.3/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier. In summary, the costs for our system were 7 to 12% lower than the corresponding Cold Gas Cleanup cases. The results of this techno-economic analysis suggested that TDA’s high temperature PSA-based Warm Gas Clean-up Technology can make a substantial improvement in the IGCC plant thermal performance for achieving near zero CO 2 emissions for E-Gas TM , GE, Shell and TRIG TM gasifier based IGCC power plants. The capital expenses were estimated to be lower than that of Selexol’s™. Taken together, the higher net plant efficiency and lower capital and operating costs resulted in substantial reduction in the cost of carbon capture for the IGCC plant equipped with TDA’s high temperature PSA-based carbon capture system. Finally, in collaboration with Gas Technology Institute (GTI) we completed the environmental health and safety assessment for TDA’s warm gas carbon capture technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗
NASA NTRS2020

X-HAB 2020: AR Field Treks Summary and Conclusions

As part of the FY20 X-Hab Challenge, BLiSS sought to create an Augmented Reality (AR) toolkit to help with analog field trek operations under the supervision of the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI). These treks are operational and technical demonstrations at space-like destinations on Earth to test current extra-vehicular activity (EVA) techniques. While BLiSS as an organization has experience studying operational tasks such as this, it has never developed AR software at this scale. For that reason, another team at the University was brought on to work in parallel. The Collaborative Lab for Advancing Work in Space (CLAWS) is a veteran group of the NASA Spacesuit User Interface Technologies for Students (SUITS) challenge in which Hololens displays for astronauts are created within a year. The operational and technological pairing was ideally suited for tackling this problem. The team divided its responsibilities so that BLiSS would handle the research required to shape the project. As this deliverable had an end user, it was decided that interviewing these field geologists and operations specialists would provide the best insight. These interviews paired with literature review would reveal niche applications for AR that remained within feasible bounds. These science-driven EVAs in unknown terrain require more flexible tools than the current generation of EVA assistants. Rather than focus on sequential instructions, there instead needs to be a broad toolkit that's only called upon in specific instances. This AR Toolkit for Lunar Astronauts and Scientists (ATLAS) became the development goal of the project: create a non-intrusive assembly of tools that could be accessed in AR on the field. The current ATLAS design makes use of a geospatially and temporally annotated eld note system called GeoNotes. This allows for data to be collected and coordinated in a way that's synchronized across time, space, and different users. A Mission Control Center (MCC) and Mobile Support Equipment (MSE) were all needed to transport the AR headset into the field with the user. A network infrastructure was designed and set up within the University to enable this functionality. The software is based on a Protocol-Module structure that allows for modular development of each capability. A Protocol Manager coordinates different protocols that make use of modules. Each module tackles a different individual task while the protocol puts each one to use. The protocol manager coordinates when these are called to be used. This software is hosted on a head-mounted display (HMD) with the MCC acting as support from afar. While the software would be unit-tested at each level and each hardware component verified, a final demonstration would serve to prove the system's capabilities: an analog field trek. The team would prepare to support a user in a remote location from the MCC back at the University. A local area near campus would be tested before going out to do sample field geology further away. This unfortunately became impossible with the arrival of COVID-19. Access to all of the facilities to complete the project as planned were shut down. Our team was scattered across the globe and forced to complete the rest virtually. Adjustments were made to produce a small virtual concept in Adobe XD in the meantime. Even digital surveys were created based on the NASA task-load index (TLX) originally intended for testing actual users. The goal shifted towards completing software and getting feedback on the user interfaces (UI) and user experiences (UX). This team has reformed in response to COVID and its focus has shifted to what can be done remotely. There is still an intention to finish the original deliverable described in this report. The work has been expanded beyond the original X-Hab challenge and has instead become its own research e ort to be continued afterwards. This report collects the processes and knowledge gained from a year of studying and working at this problem with two teams. It should preserve it for the time until the world returns to normal and work can resume. CLAWS will be taking over full responsibility from that point forward, eventually surpassing the original needs of the project. While this document captures the work done towards an eventual end, the CLAWS team has written their own proposal alongside it. It outlines a new future for ATLAS beyond X-Hab, BLiSS, and hopefully beyond COVID-19. This project began as a vague goal hoping to place a new technology into the unique setting of exploration science. The project has since comfortably taken root and will hopefully bloom over the next year.

Alex Sena↗
DOE OSTI2020

Residential Building Energy Efficiency Field Studies: Low-Rise Multifamily

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted a series of research studies to validate energy efficient building technologies in the field. Much of the work has focused on single-family construction, and some has also addressed commercial energy codes. The work detailed in this DOE-funded study (EE0007616) focuses on low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer above grade) in various regions of the United States, and reports on how state-level building codes are being implemented, both in terms of observed characteristics and also in terms of estimated energy impacts. Nearly 100 buildings across four states—Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—were sampled, which represent a range of climate types from mild temperature to very cold continental. Both common entry and outdoor entry buildings were included, and a parallel research project evaluated envelope air tightness and current still-evolving air tightness testing methods. Finally, a set of structured interviews of building designers and other relevant professionals was carried to out to gain more insight into this market. To the greatest extent possible, the methodology developed under the project for low-rise multifamily buildings mirrored the approach established by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for single-family residential buildings (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-building-energy-code-field-study). This included the general approach to sampling, recruitment, and data collection, as well as data analysis and presentation. The range of permitting dates for the sites encompassed two energy code cycles in most regions. All states in the study had adopted a variation of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for the structure of their state code. The low-rise multifamily occupancy presents a hybrid building type: most of the building’s conditioned floor area was covered by the residential chapter of the code while portions of the building (such as corridors and common spaces) fell under the commercial code chapter. The key items assessed in this work were: Building Shell—exterior wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, windows. Common Areas—HVAC and lighting. Living Units—lighting, ventilation. A few items were not assessed in detail, given their relative paucity in this occupancy type; these included duct leakage, pipe insulation, and hot water circulation controls. Building characteristics were collected via a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan reviews and field inspections, and entered into a spreadsheet-based tool that was later queried to build a database. Data went through quality control both upon arrival and via a later semi-automated review and assurance process. Most of the data are presented graphically so that the reader can quickly assess compliance with the applicable energy codes (both by state and by code year). As a final step, EnergyPlus™ simulations were created for all buildings in the study to estimate both the as-found energy use intensity (EUI) and the energy and CO 2 that could be saved if features that were found to not meet code minimums were brought up to code. The savings estimates were tabulated for each of the four states in the study. The research team found that the single-family approach was largely applicable to low-rise multifamily buildings. This applies to both the data collection and the prototype EUI analysis. Most of the occupied space is living units and falls under residential energy codes, and many characteristics use similar envelope construction and relatively straightforward mechanical systems and lighting. One of the most challenging aspects of this work was to build an effective spreadsheet-based data collection instrument that could allow efficient collection of both building plan and field data. The research team is of the view that other methods could be equally effective if the work is done carefully with diligent quality control. The primary findings for the work center around the thermal envelope and mechanical systems and lighting at the sites: For thermal envelope components, the majority of buildings met or were better than the prescriptive code.This suggests that building designers and builders are aware of code requirements. In some cases, surveyed buildings were designed to qualify for energy efficiency certification programs. These buildings made up at least 20% of sampled buildings in each state. Almost all buildings met mechanical system efficiency requirements (for both living units and common areas). In some cases, sites employed systems that were considerably more efficient than required by the applicable energy code. Dwelling units had a majority of high-efficacy lighting, often in excess of the state’s residential code requirements. While high-efficacy fixtures were also typical in common areas (corridors and stairwells), lighting power densities (LPDs) in these areas were sometimes higher than levels dictated by the applicable part of the state commercial energy code. The simulation models run on a series of low-rise multifamily prototypes, informed by a composite of the field data collected, calculated annual EUIs of between 20 and 50 kBtu/ft2-yr, with the range representing the effects of both building characteristics and building location (climate zone). A detailed process (based on simulations of prototype buildings) was used to estimate the amount of avoided energy use that would occur if 100% adherence to energy codes were attained. The results indicated modest savings are attainable for items such as window thermal performance and common area lighting. The result is overall only a modest potential for additional energy savings, averaging about 10% of EUI.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗